Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40584741›Full record

ArticlePrecision clinical medicine2025

A benchmarking study of copy number variation inference methods using single-cell RNA-sequencing data.

Xin Chen, Li Tai Fang, Zhong Chen, Wanqiu Chen, Hongjin Wu, Bin Zhu, Malcolm Moos, Andrew Farmer, Xiaowen Zhang, Wei Xiong and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Precision clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Xin ChenCenter for Genomics, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350, USA.
Li Tai FangBioinformatics Research Engineering, Freenome Holdings Inc., South San Francisco, CA 94080, USA.
Zhong ChenCenter for Genomics, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350, USA.
Wanqiu ChenCenter for Genomics, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350, USA.
Hongjin WuCenter for Genomics, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350, USA.
Bin ZhuDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0172-5516
Malcolm MoosCenter for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Office of Cellular Therapies and Human Tissues, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland 20993, USA.
Andrew FarmerTakara Bio USA, Inc., San Jose, CA 95131, USA.
Xiaowen ZhangDepartment of Otolaryngology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 510182, China.
Wei XiongDepartment of Otolaryngology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China.
Shusheng GongDepartment of Otolaryngology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China.
Wendell JonesIQVIA Laboratories Genomics, Durham, NC 27703, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9676-5387
Christopher E MasonDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Shixiu WuQuzhou Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Quzhou 324000, China.
Chunlin XiaoNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA.
Charles WangCenter for Genomics, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8861-2121

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) has emerged as a powerful tool for cancer research, enabling in-depth characterization of tumor heterogeneity at the single-cell level. Recently, several scRNA-seq copy number variation (scCNV) inference methods have been developed, expanding the application of scRNA-seq to study genetic heterogeneity in cancer using transcriptomic data. However, the fidelity of these methods has not been investigated systematically. Methods: We benchmarked five commonly used scCNV inference methods: HoneyBADGER, CopyKAT, CaSpER, inferCNV, and sciCNV. We evaluated their performance across four different scRNA-seq platforms using data from our previous multicenter study. We evaluated scCNV performance further using scRNA-seq datasets derived from mixed samples consisting of five human lung adenocarcinoma cell lines and also sequenced tissues from a small cell lung cancer patient and used the data to validate our findings with a clinical scRNA-seq dataset. Results: We found that the sensitivity and specificity of the five scCNV inference methods varied, depending on the selection of reference data, sequencing depth, and read length. CopyKAT and CaSpER outperformed other methods overall, while inferCNV, sciCNV, and CopyKAT performed better than other methods in subclone identification. We found that batch effects significantly affected the performance of subclone identification in mixed datasets in most methods we tested. Conclusion: Our benchmarking study revealed the strengths and weaknesses of each of these scCNV inference methods and provided guidance for selecting the optimal CNV inference method using scRNA-seq data.

Indexed as

benchmarkingcopy number variation (CNV) inferenceRNA-seqscRNA-seqscRNA-seq CNV methods

Identifiers

PMID40584741
PMCPMC12204187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.